Archive for the ‘Bernie Sanders’ Category

Matt Vespa’s article is the worst news Bernie Sanders has received in quite some time. Inside his article is this tidbit of information:

Nevada’s powerful Culinary Workers Union will not endorse in the presidential primary, while criticizing Bernie Sanders’ signature Medicare for All proposal, according to three sources with knowledge of the decision. In declining to pick a candidate, but sharply criticizing Sen. Bernie Sanders’ signature policy position, Medicare for All, the union created an opening for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, two moderate Democrats with little demonstrated support in the state.

That’s truly throwing Bernie under the bus. Taking direct aim at Bernie’s signature issue isn’t what he’d like to hear. The question is whether this issue will sink him in other states. This suggests it will:

In Pennsylvania, some top union leaders were also adamant that they would tell their people to stay home or vote for Trump should Sanders or Warren become the 2020 Democratic nominee. In the Keystone State, Sanders’ commitment to a universal ban on fracking, which will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the must-win state, is just a bridge too far.

LFR has frequently said that the Democrats’ opposition to fracking and fossil fuels is their Achilles heel. That’s the thing that puts Democrats in God’s little acre: just east of the rock, just west of the hard place. Some issues have multiple solutions. Energy is a binary choice. If you oppose fossil fuels, you’re the enemy. Period.

This is predictable. Bernie truly believes in Medicare-for-All. What he can’t do anything about is the fact that unions have often negotiated for Cadillac plans, which aren’t taxed, while settling for lower wages. Meanwhile, Bernie is on the wrong side of the fossil fuels issue. Dan Crenshaw and Kevin McCarthy are offering a better way forward:

Congressmen including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, and Dan Crenshaw, of Texas, are pitching the legislation as a common sense alternative to Democrats’ calls for limiting the use of fossil fuels. “There’s this false choice between doing nothing and over regulating,” Crenshaw said. “That would do nothing, because the United States is only 15 percent of emissions.”

International corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron favor a carbon tax, likely because that’s a competition-killer. That doesn’t do anything to fix what’s wrong. Expect union rank-and-file to agree with Republicans on this issue.

On the day voting happens in Vermont, we still don’t have the final vote totals from Iowa. That’s because the Sanders campaign and Buttigieg campaign have each asked for partial recanvasses of the results. At this rate, we might have Iowa’s totals verified before the Convention in Milwaukee. I’m not betting the ranch on that but it might happen.

With that crisis still unresolved, Democrats are facing a somewhat similar crisis in Nevada:

Frustrated. Concerned. Nervous. Those are some of the words aides are using to describe the mood within some of the top Democratic presidential campaigns in Nevada with only five days until early voting is set to begin for the state’s first in the West presidential caucus and still no details on how exactly it’s supposed to work.
Campaigns here in the Silver State have been told that the Nevada State Democratic Party won’t be using the same app and vendor that were in part responsible for bungling the results of Iowa’s caucus last week, that the party won’t be using any app at all, and that what the party does plan to use is best described as a “tool” or “calculator.” Beyond that, aides aren’t really sure what’s in store for the state’s Feb. 22 Democratic caucus.

Have Democrats run anything beyond a lemonade stand? Here in Minnesota, examples of DFL competence in running things are rarities. MNLARS will (hopefully) be a distant memory soon after being a nightmare for 2+ years. MNsure was a disaster for a year. The Minnesota Human Services fiascoes happened over a period of years before being discovered. People remember the disaster that Healthcare.gov was.

“It’s a little bit of a damper for our volunteers who are more hesitant to step up and say, ‘Yes, I will confirm I will be precinct leadership on Feb. 22,’ when they don’t feel entirely certain about what’s going to happen,” one aide said. “Never mind the campaign, but with four days until early voting begins, the people who are going to participate feel like they need to have a credible explanation of how the early voting and caucus process are going to work.”

Here we go again? Only a Democrat could turn simple arithmetic into this convoluted mess. This isn’t how this should work. The only top-tier Democrats who’ve run anything are Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg. Everyone else is a senator. They talk for a living.

Both mayors are far outside the mainstream on the issues, which is why few people outside the Democratic Party take either of them seriously. Meanwhile, the nation keeps humming along under President Trump’s leadership. He’s actually run something and holds mainstream views. The economy is strong. We’re safer than we were under President Obama. Emergencies are handled efficiently.

That’s quite the contrast from the Party that can’t even do basic math, aka the Democrats. Bernie hasn’t run anything. Ditto with Biden, Klobuchar, Warren or what’s his name that still hasn’t dropped out (Michael Bennet).

Things are running well. People are making money. Income inequality is shrinking. People’s 401(k)s are getting healthier. If it isn’t broke, don’t tinker with it. That’s what Democrats did with the Iowa Caucuses. How’d that turn out? This is how that worked:

The KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) still works best. I’m a huge fan of trailing edge technology. I love things that work and that have worked for years. There’s nothing wrong with the Iowa Caucuses that a little uncomplicating can’t fix.

On a national scale, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats don’t run things. It isn’t part of their DNA. Bill Clinton is the lone exception. Berniecrats think that he’s too conservative. I guess they didn’t like the prosperity.

This article questions whether Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign is legitimate. The article opens by saying “Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s campaign contributed money to the technological firm whose voting app contributed to reporting delays in the Iowa caucuses. Federal Election Commission filings reveal that Buttigieg’s campaign gave tens of thousands of dollars to Shadow on July 23, 2019, for ‘software rights and subscriptions.'”

It continues, saying “Shadow, a technology company that has an investor in the Democratic digital nonprofit organization ACRONYM, was also paid $60,000 over two installments by the Iowa Democratic Party to build an app to help make caucus voting easier and faster for precinct volunteers. Filings also reveal that the Nevada Democratic Party paid Shadow $58,000 for ‘website development.'”

In this video, Krystal Ball goes on a 5-minute rant, highlighting Buttigieg’s ‘connections’:

That’s the personification of political corruption. When the DNC chairman jumps when Pete calls, that’s worrisome. Watch the entire video. Saying that they aren’t impressed with Buttigieg is understatement. The Buttigieg that Ball and Enjeti talk about is into class warfare and elitism.

The Buttigieg that interfered with the satellite caucuses isn’t a candidate into diversity. That’s a candidate who won’t hesitate to do whatever it takes (legal or illegal) to win. Bernie won’t criticize Buttigieg about that corruption. He’s too much of a wimp to do that. If Bloomberg doesn’t challenge him, he’ll be the Democrats’ nominee.

If that happens, President Trump will expose Buttigieg as a corrupt, elitist Democrat. That won’t play well in the battleground states of the Heartland. Obama won Indiana in 2008 by getting a huge turnout of African-Americans in Gary, IN. That won’t happen with Buttigieg.

Finally, there’s some results from Iowa. Whether they’re accurate is still in question. Last night, when it became clear that the Iowa Democratic Party’s app wouldn’t work, the Klobuchar, Biden, Buttigieg, Warren and Yang campaigns delivered rah-rah speeches to fire up their supporters even though they didn’t have any results.

Later, the Sanders campaign “took it on itself to release numbers it collected from nearly 40 percent of precincts, tabulated by its campaign organizers. The Sanders campaign reports it received 29.7 percent of the vote, closely followed by former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 24.6 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in at 21.2 percent, and former Vice President Joe Biden in fourth at 12.4 percent. Sanders put those numbers out shortly after Buttigieg finished his own, seemingly triumphant speech in Iowa. The party said it would release official results Tuesday.”

Relying on a campaign’s campaign figures isn’t the smartest thing. Campaigns have been known to cherry-pick information that most favors them and omit the information that isn’t flattering to them. Still, it’s the closest thing to actual data that we’ve seen thus far.

If Sanders’ numbers are relatively accurate, Biden and Klobuchar have a reason to worry. Biden had Iowa to himself, with the exception of Buttigieg. If he had a real message, he would’ve put the state away and coasted to victory. He didn’t win with 12.4% of the vote. It was smart for Sen. Klobuchar to make her speech but reality will catch up if she doesn’t get a message fast.

This morning, President Trump weighed in via twitter:


This tweet looks totally foolish at this point:


No results 14 hours after the Caucuses started is transparency? Who knew that they’d lowered the bar that far? Is that like invisible transparency?

Years ago, Minnesotans got quite a chuckle at the expense of Iowans. The joke was that Iowa wasn’t name but an acronym. The joke was that Iowa was an acronym that stood for “I Owe the World an Apology.” Last night, the first in the nation caucus did something that no other political party had done before. Iowa held a caucus, then didn’t report the results.

Each of the top Democrats delivered a quasi-victory speech, with Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar being the first Democrat to sound upbeat without having anything except anecdotal evidence on the results. Klobuchar was followed by Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang. It was thought that Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren (not necessarily in that order) were the top 3, with Biden “finishing a distant 4th.” If that’s true, and we don’t know that it is, Klobuchar will have survived because the Democratic Party of Iowa was too incompetent to count votes.

CNN is reporting that “Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price faced intense criticism from multiple Democratic campaigns during a call early on Tuesday morning, with senior advisers repeatedly questioning the transparency of the process.”

Price continued:

Price sought to defend the process, arguing that the delay in reporting results stemmed from the party’s desire to “ensure the integrity of the process” but that the party was working to keep “campaigns in the loop throughout this entire process.”

Guy Benson tweeted this incomplete data from the Sanders campaign:


It isn’t Guy’s fault that he didn’t have complete numbers. That fault lies 100% on the Democratic Party of Iowa. Mark Meadows’ tweet:


What could possibly go wrong?

When it was first reported that the final CNN-Des Moines Register poll before the caucuses wouldn’t be published, the Des Moines Register issued this explanation on why it wouldn’t be published:

The Des Moines Register, CNN and Selzer & Co. have made the decision to not release the final installment of the CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll as planned Saturday evening. Nothing is more important to the Register and its polling partners than the integrity of the Iowa Poll. Today, a respondent raised an issue with the way the survey was administered, which could have compromised the results of the poll. It appears a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate.

Jazz Shaw’s article asks some important questions that stop well short of conspiracy theories:

How big would the impact have been on the final results? The sample size for the last Des Moines Register Iowa poll was 701 likely caucus-goers. Let’s say there were ten people making the calls. If one person’s font size was off, there might have been roughly 70 calls where a name was left off the list of choices. But they randomize the order of the names, so all the candidates would have missed being listed, likely less than a dozen times each. Wouldn’t that randomization balance out?

I’m not a statistician but couldn’t this be fixed by weighting the results differently? To the statisticians reading this, feel free to offer insights into this question in the comments section.

UPDATE: Powerline has an update on this story that’s worth checking out:


I won’t say that I’ll trust this information. I’ll just offer this opinion: if it’s true, then the Klobuchar campaign ends in Iowa.

The other thing worth noting is that the DMR poll is the gold standard in Iowa polling, much like the Marquette Law School poll is the gold standard in Wisconsin. We’ll still have to wait on the results but the DMR poll is usually accurate.

Voters need to ask themselves some serious questions about what they want from the 2020 elections. First, is it better to have politicians that listen to the people than having politicians who ignore the needs of the people? It’s clear that Democrats ran on fixing health care. Instead, they’ve spent this entire congress impeaching President Trump. What’s worse is that Democrats apparently will pursue another round of impeachment hearings once this impeachment trial ends.

Next, is it better to have politicians who keep their promises than it is to break their promises? House Democrats promised to fix health care and lower prescription drug prices. That was dropped virtually the minute that they got gavels. Yes, they passed a bill on prescription drugs. It was virtually all about price controls from the federal government. That isn’t a solution. That’s the opposite of fixing it.

Meanwhile, when Republicans were in the majority, they passed the tax cuts that have acted like jet fuel to the economy. Republicans did that without a single vote from Democrats in either the House or Senate. (Isn’t that what’s called obstruction?) Republicans used the Congressional Review Act to eliminate tons of Obama administration regulations. Eliminating those regulations have led to the fracking boom and the energy boom. As a result of that, we’re no longer dependent on Mideast oil that travel through the Straits of Hormuz.

President Trump has flaws but he’s got some incredible strengths, too. Think of the BS that Democrats have thrown at him via impeachment, improperly surveilling his campaign, his transition and his administration. Think of the BS that the media has thrown at him. For example, this week, John Dean and Carl Bernstein were part of a panel on CNN. Bernstein emphatically insisted that the Senate participated in a cover-up because they didn’t call additional witnesses:

During the public House Permanent Special Committee on Intelligence hearings, the media ‘reported’ of that day’s “bombshell testimony” like they were obligated to do it. The people need to decide whether we want responsible journalists who tell the truth or whether we want tabloid journalists who work as propagandists for Establishment Democrats.

Imagine what would’ve gotten done if President Trump had a congress that worked with him. Imagine what would’ve gotten accomplished if the press simply reported the truth.

Fourth, the people need to determine whether we want a corrupt Democrat as Senate Majority Leader or whether we want a Republican who works with President Trump on confirming judges to the district, appellate and Supreme courts and criminal justice reform.

There’s tons of proof that Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi prefer acting like Resist Movement activists as opposed to acting like the loyal opposition. Finally, do the people want these haters controlling the Democrat Party?


Much is at stake in this election. Voting Democrat isn’t a serious option. Look at the damage that they’ve already done.

If people still entertained the silly notion that CNN was impartial about who wins the Democrats’ presidential nomination, that notion just disappeared. That notion disappeared because CNN moderator Abby Phillips ignored Sen. Sanders’ answer to her question.

The fight started when Phillips asked “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Sen. Sanders replied, saying “Well, in fact, I didn’t say that.” Sen. Sanders’ answer apparently didn’t fit CNN’s narrative so Phillip asked Sen. Warren “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

Welcome to the club, Bernie. You now know how Republicans feel when the Agenda Media ignore their answers. Implicit in the Agenda Media’s response is the inference that both parties know that the aggrieved party is lying. The answer isn’t important. What’s important to CNN is whether they maintain the narrative.

After the debate, CNN went further in antagonizing Sen. Sanders, releasing audio of Sanders and Warren fighting. During that fight, Sen. Warren said “I think you just called me a liar on national TV.” After that accusation, Sen. Sanders replied “What?” That led Sen. Warren to respond, saying “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Bernie’s supporters aren’t taking this lightly:


Sen. Warren went into this debate needing to regain momentum going into the first contest for the Democrat presidential nomination. Sen. Warren came across as dishonest and vindictive during the debate and afterwards, too.

I didn’t watch last night’s Democrat presidential debate but it sounds like the fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took a nasty turn after the debate. This upsets the Democrats happy little family storyline:

Sanders and Warren approached one another and he stuck out his hand. She did not shake it. What followed was a brief but clearly uncomfortable conversation. As Sanders’ campaign co-chair Nina Turner put it on CNN: “I’m not sure what she said, but you can read the body language. Obviously, their conversation was not pleasant.”

Then the fight turned to social media. As of Wednesday morning, the hashtag “#neverWarren” was trending as Bernie allies took to Twitter to attack the Massachusetts senator as a lying snake.

There’s little doubt that Warren is lying, not Sanders. Sanders doesn’t have a history of lying. Warren does. This is from last night’s debate:

Elizabeth Warren has a lengthy history of lying:

Policy-wise, Bernie and Pocahontas are nuttier than fruitcake. From a character standpoint, though, they’re different. Warren is utterly corrupt.

This reeks of desperation on Warren’s part. She’s been sinking in the polls ever since she couldn’t explain how she’d pay for her health care plan. With the first votes looming, she needs, to use a football metaphor, a Hail Mary pass. This intentional leak is likely Sen. Warren’s attempt to regain momentum and relevance.

When it comes to dovish presidential candidates, this year’s Democrats look more like 1972 than any other bunch of dovish Democrats. Kim Strassel’s article highlights just how leftist this year’s Democrat frontrunners are. Let’s start with Bernie Sanders’ dovishness.

Strassel writes “Voters now know that a President Bernie Sanders would not take action against Iran or other rogue regimes, no matter how many red lines they cross. Mr. Sanders will take no step that might bring us anywhere closer to ‘another disastrous war’ or cost ‘more dollars and more deaths.'” Honestly, I’m not certain Bernie would have any red lines. Thankfully, we won’t have to worry about that since he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the general election. That being said, he’s got a decent shot at winning the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

A President Elizabeth Warren would similarly offer a pass to leaders of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, at least if they have an official title. The Trump strike, she said, amounted to the “assassination” of “a government official, a high-ranking military official.”

Richard Nixon was right when he said that “the world is a terrible neighborhood to live in.” Anyone that thinks that these Democrats are prepared to be commander-in-chief is kidding themselves. People this dovish aren’t prepared for the harsh responsibilities of making difficult decisions on a moment’s notice. This interview is proof that Elizabeth Warren isn’t bright enough to be commander-in-chief:

Anyone that thinks that the US isn’t safer as a result of killing Maj. Gen. Soleimani doesn’t pass the commander-in-chief test. Sen. Warren thinks we aren’t safer now than we were 3 years ago. Right after 9/11, we were told that killing terrorists created more terrorists. After the US took out the Taliban and things settled down a little bit, we were told that the Arab street respected “the strong horse.” It’s time to stop thinking that these Democrats have a clue about national security/terrorism. They don’t. They’re idiots. The guy in the White House is the only person currently running that I’d trust with these matters. Trusting Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg or Warren with national security, terrorism or foreign policy is foolish.